It's that time you get in any government, six months or so before an election, where all kinds of 'populist' stuff comes out to get as many good headlines as possible without any thought as to the long-term consequences.

Surprised no-one has yet mentioned the fact that Sky may well decide that if they can't have Ashes Tests they don't want any home Tests at all; the ideal scenario is that home Tests as a rule simply return to free-to-air (the word terrestrial is irrelevant as in any conceivable world there will no longer be analogue broadcasts in 2017) TV, from which they should never have been removed ITFP. Ashes-only on FTA and everything else on satellite seems to me, like everyone else, to be a dreadful idea.

The effect of this decision is still a long, long way ahead - by the time the 2016 Ashes or whatever it is rolls around, we won't have had any live cricket on free-to-air TV for 11 years. It'll be a completely new World and in all honesty I think it's pretty much a case of anyone predicting things are going to be good or bad isn't really going to have much of a clue. There's no way we're going to get back to the ideal situation which we had 2000-2005, because as I say things will have changed so much - already have in fact. Whether we get something worse or better than we're currently in the midst of will only be able to be assessed nearer the time.

You really can't. How on Earth can someone possibly profess to be able to assess the impact of something when they can't even begin yet to assess the impact of the previous related decision (ie, the move to take all live cricket off FTA)?

The World is a more ever-changing matter than ever currently. In 7 years' time Heaven knows how much is going to be different in so many different ways which impact upon what impact the move will have.

That's aside from the fact that there is no certainty of exactly what is going to be entailed by this ruling, as seen by the number of comments questioning the matter in this thread. There is so much that we don't have a clue about that to speculate is in my view pretty pointless. Let's wait and see how the next 4 years go, never mind the next 6.

I just heard Giles Clarke on R4 explaining why it would be so disastrous. He's high on my list of people I wouldn't want to be stuck in a lift with. He has a deeply unfortunate manner - he seems to think that he comes across as robust and direct but in fact comes across as bullying and pig-headed. In short, a tosser.

Anyhow the ECB, like any organisation, very quickly becomes used to having a big budget and will be resistant to cuts in that budget. The problem is, with Tests only on Sky, cricket is in danger of sliding well down into the ranks of minority sports.

There's no way the ECB in 1997 could have made any estimate of what the impact of the deal effective from 2006 was going to have, same way no-one can do even now, 3 years later.

Some things cannot be estimated upon, and in the course of 7 years so much can change that the head can spin even trying to think about it.

I'm glad you're not running a business, mate. Any business is going to estimate the changes brought in by signing a new contract, especially one that involves the loss or gain of millions of pounds. It's absolutely ludicrous not to. It's not as if businesses just think 'it's seven years in the future, **** it, let's just take it the deal and sort it out later.' These things take a long time because the businesses involved have to figure out what kind of effect it's going to have on them.

Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber

Only a bunch of convicts having been beaten 3-0 and gone 9 tests without a win and won just 1 in 11 against England could go into the home series saying they will win. England will win in Australia again this winter as they are a better side which they have shown this summer. 3-0 doesn't lie girls.

I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that any estimates are going to be very, very rough TSTL. No-one can honestly have a clue what is going to happen. Obviously the ECB need to try to plan, but right now try is the very, very best they can remotely hope to do. Only nearer the time will they really be able to know what the impact is going to be.

Nonetheless, anything which scaremongers people in English cricket into relishing and making the utmost of every pound rather than the shocking throwing money around like there's no tomorrow we've seen in recent years - especially if it gets done immediately - can only be a good thing.

I just heard Giles Clarke on R4 explaining why it would be so disastrous. He's high on my list of people I wouldn't want to be stuck in a lift with. He has a deeply unfortunate manner - he seems to think that he comes across as robust and direct but in fact comes across as bullying and pig-headed. In short, a tosser.

Has been my impression of him since before I even saw him speak, and doubly so since.

For those who don't know, Clarke was the main man who negotiated the Sky deal a good while before he became ECB Chairman, and his reasoning was diabolical TSTL, easily picked apart by a university professor in a relatively brief Wisden article.

It's only a recommendation, and almost certainly won't survive the next change of government, but if it doesn't go away it has all the potential to be as silly as the "is cannabis a class B or C drug" farce that this government has fannied around with for the last few years